BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF BOLDYREVA v. RUSSIA
(Application
no. 23542/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 December
2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Boldyreva v. Russia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr C.L. Rozakis, President,
Mr L.
Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mr A.
Kovler,
Mrs E. Steiner,
Mr K. Hajiyev,
Mr G.
Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 23542/04) against the Russian
Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Russian national, Mrs Zoya Alekseyevna
Boldyreva (“the applicant”), on 21 March 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Sivoldayev, a lawyer
practising in Voronezh. The Russian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr P. Laptev,
Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of
Human Rights.
- On
1 March 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Voronezh.
- In
February 2000 the applicant brought proceedings claiming compensation
for the State's failure to pay her old-age pension in good time. On
15 December 2000 the Levoberezhniy District Court of Voronezh ordered
the local Social Security Committee to pay her 1,243.14 Russian
roubles (RUB).
- On
21 January 2001 a bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings. On 14
May 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant without
enforcement because the defendant had no funds.
- On
5 December 2005 the applicant received the monies due under the
judgment of 15 December 2000.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1
- The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and
in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the judgment
of 15 December 2000 had not been enforced in good time.
The relevant parts of those provisions read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time... by [a]... tribunal...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law...”
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Government acknowledged a violation of the applicant's rights.
- The
applicant maintained her complaint.
- The
Court observes, and it is not contested by the parties, that the
judgment of 15 December 2000 was enforced in full
on 5 December 2005. It follows
that the judgment remained without enforcement for nearly five
years.
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues
similar to the ones in the present case (see Burdov v. Russia,
no. 59498/00, § 35, ECHR 2002 III; Wasserman
v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November
2004; and Gerasimova v. Russia,
no. 24669/02, § 17 et seq., 13
October 2005).
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject and to the Government's
acknowledgment of a violation, the Court finds that by failing, for
years, to comply with the enforceable judgment in the applicant's
favour the domestic authorities impaired the essence of her right to
a court and prevented her from receiving the money she could
reasonably have expected to receive.
- There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed RUB 2,271.97 in respect of pecuniary damage,
representing inflation losses during the period of non-enforcement
plus the interest at the marginal lending rate of the Russian Central
Bank. She also claimed 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government submitted that no just satisfaction should be awarded to
the applicant because her claims were unsubstantiated. The finding of
a violation in itself would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
- The
Court considers that the applicant suffered a pecuniary loss which
would have been avoided had the authorities enforced the judgment of
15 December 2000 in good time. Having regard to the materials in its
possession and to the fact that the Government did not object to the
applicant's method of calculation, the Court accepts the applicant's
claim and awards her under this head EUR 65, plus any tax that may be
chargeable on that amount.
- The
Court further considers that the applicant must have suffered
distress and frustration resulting from the State authorities'
failure to enforce in good time the judgment in her favour. Taking
into account the length of the enforcement proceedings and the nature
of the award, and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the
Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 25 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic authorities and for those incurred before the
Court.
- The
Government made no comment.
- The
Court considers it reasonable to award the sum requested under this
head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on that amount.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention the following
sums, to be converted into Russian roubles at the rate applicable at
the date of the settlement:
(i) EUR
3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
65 (sixty-five euros) in respect of pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR
25 (twenty-five euros) in respect of costs and expenses;
(iv) plus
any tax that may be chargeable on the above amounts;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three
months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European
Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 December 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
